Bryant v. State, 44106
| Decision Date | 06 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 44106,44106 |
| Citation | 471 S.W.2d 66 |
| Parties | Tommie English BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ron S. Galloway, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Harry J. Schulz, Jr., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Edgar A. Mason, Robert T. Baskett and James S. Moss, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of robbery. The punishment was assessed by a jury at two hundred years.
Appellant presents 6 grounds of error, only two of which are briefed.
First, contention is made that the trial court erred in overruling objections and denying motion for mistrial 'to the state raising the issue of the Defendant being in the State Penitentiary, prior to the Defendant taking the stand.'
Michael L. Hill testified that he was the night manager of the Parkit Market, a drive-in grocery in Dallas. On December 8, 1969, he was shot and robbed during a successful holdup at the store. He identified the appellant as the lone robber.
The defense called James A. Duncan who testified that from December 5th through December 8th, 1969, he and appellant were together in Arkansas. He stated that at the time of the robbery they were on the way back from Arkansas.
On cross-examination, witness Duncan stated that he first met the appellant during September, 1969, at Duncan's place of business, the J & B Lounge in Dallas. He was then asked if he didn't know that the appellant was in the penitentiary during the month of September and was not released until October 14, 1969. We perceive no error in this method of cross-examination. The question was proper to test the knowledge and credibility of appellant's witness. Matthews v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 189 S.W. 491.
Moreover, the record reflects that appellant testified in his own behalf, against the advice of counsel. He admitted on direct examination his prior felony convictions, including the fact that he had gotten out of the penitentiary on October 14, 1969. By introducing evidence to the same effect, appellant waived any objection. Ansley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 862; Arreguin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 729.
Next, appellant complains the court erred in admitting into evidence extraneous offenses of robbery in Dallas County on November 24th, December 11th and December 16th, 1969.
Evidence as to said extraneous offenses was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dewberry v. State
-
Albrecht v. State
...Texas Law of Evidence, Sec. 1521 (2d Ed.).6 E.g., Grayson v. State, supra; Davis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 958; Bryant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 66; Owens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 324; Gregory v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 449 S.W.2d 248; Parnell v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 23......
-
Henriksen v. State
...committed in a manner similar to the offense charged. The evidence was properly admitted. See Martin v. State, supra; Bryant v. State, 471 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Owens v. State, 450 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Blankenship v. State, 448 S.W.2d 476 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Appellant argues ......
-
Plante v. State
...on appeal about the wording of the limiting instruction. See Burns v. State, 556 S.W.2d 270, 284 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Bryant v. State, 471 S.W.2d 66, 67 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); 1 Ray, supra, § 21; see also Tex.R.Evid. 105(a). It was appellant's contention during trial that the extraneous debts wer......